Saturday, March 28, 2009

T-mobile and Walmart

So I stopped by the T-Mobile store in San Mucus (er, Marcos :) ) with my brother OJ to look at some phone options for me, as my Dash is quickly becoming the next possible next victim of my revolver's ballistic fury. While in there I had no issues. Even the manager came up to me and said that he apologized for the line and it should just be a moment, shook my hand and didn't even mention a thing. Beautiful.

Later on at 8:40 or so, I went to Walmart to try and pick up some ammo and spray paint. The ammo counter was PATHETIC! I can't believe how much ammunition is NOT there! FUDGE!

While at the counter and contemplating how Obama has really messed up my shooting plans, two guys came over and asked me about open carry. I conversed with them about it and handed out some of my business cards to them and they seemed very excited about it. Score one for the good guys!

After that I went over to the paint counter for my spray paint and the paint guy asked me about why I was carrying. I explained that I open carried and he said "Gee, I wish a few people were doing that up there in Oakland." WOW! Actual support! I gave him one of my business cards so he could check it out further.

Now I am not sure about this, but after checking out and leaving the store, I did pass one of those lame rent-a-cop cruiser vehicles with its lame lights blinking all over. Not sure if it was for me or he was just trying to look cool but he ended up parking in the middle of the parking lot, lights blinking and possibly filling out paperwork.

A good day. A good day indeed.




J.R. said...

Some WalMarts like to have those kind of security services, like the one near my old place in Chula Vista. Sounds par for the course.

davina said...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not President Obama who's ruining your shooting plans. Trust me, i Ilove my guns, but let's be logical here. I don't know why there's this fear that Obama is going to get rid of guns. He's not. If people actually bothered to look at his site before he was elected, they'd know that his agenda is to "Limit the amount of guns accessed by children, while continuing to honor 2nd amendment rights." Everyone just freaked out an bought up all the guns. If anyone is to blame for the annoying lack of ammo at Walmart, its the ignorant.

J.R. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J.R. said...

A key word is missing.

"Limit the amount of guns accessed by children UNSUPERVISED, while continuing to honor 2nd amendment rights."

As actually written, children should have little to no access at all, so they are a lot less likely to grow up to be adults responsible for themselves rather than depending on the government to protect them.

Best way to enact change is to start with the children, in the most insidious ways possible.

People always get on politicians for lying. Most of the time they're carefully wording stuff to seem vaguely benign, when actually qualifying the statements would prove they are liars when they do the exact opposite.

davina said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Gay Al said...

Obama is a long time gun grabber from Illinois. He's voted for every measure that has come out for controlling LEGALLY owned firearms. Now that he's president, you better believe, if a bill crosses his desk that is more limiting of OUR civil rights, he's gonna sign it.

davina said...

There's no doubt that he's for gun restrictive legislation. But the type of bills that will come up are those requiring more registration requirements, or harsher safety restrictions, basically hassles. The point I was making was that he's NOT GOING TO BAN GUNS, so there's no need to freak out and clean out the gun stores. I wasn't saying he's gun friendly, but if he signs a bill requiring a stringent set of requirements on us gun owners, it's not going to matter if you own 1 gun or 20, or if you bought them a year ago or a month ago.

elsensei said...

The founders are spinning in their graves. Thomas Jefferson in particular is rotating so fast that if we hooked him to a flywheel, he could generate enough power to wean us off foreign oil.

We have fallen so far from the meaning of the Constitution in general and the 2nd amendment in particular.

The right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That is on par with "congress shall make no law". ANY registration is infringement. 626.9 is infringement. Background checks are infringement. Limiting purchases or types are infringements. Magazine limitations are infringements. Concealed weapons permits are infringements.

Frankly, and no thinking person can argue with this, the only law of the 20,000 gun laws on the books that isn't unconstitutional would be one that provides free surplus military ammunition to anyone who wants it, no questions asked, no ID required. But I doubt that law exists.

Anything else, any other law, is a step towards totalitarianism.

davina said...

I agree, there are a lot of bull**** laws out there. I can do just as much damage with three 10 round magazines as with one 30 round mag, and I can make someone just as dead with a 9mm handgun as an AK-47. Hi-cap laws, assult weapon laws: they're pointless. But I don't think it's such an infringement on our rights to require child safety locks, or background checks. Criminals shouldn't have guns, and if you're not a criminal then the check won't affect you, you'll still get your gun. I think that's one of the reasons anti-gun people hate us so much. There's too much arrogance and "any law is an infringement" talk. Yes, it is a constitutional right, but come on, who cares if there's a law telling us we have to buy a measly $10 lock to prevent unintended use. Let's focus on the laws that are actually stupid (hi-caps, 1 gun per 30 days, etc). Trust me, the anti-gun community needs to grow a pair and stop believing all the misconceptions about firearms, but if we were a little more reasonable maybe we'd get cut some slack.

Also, all these comments are valid, but no one has even attempted to respond to the original point I made that Obama isn't going to ban guns.

J.R. said...

Obama is just the latest participant in a multi-generational scheme to prevent kids from using guns responsibly. The more generations go by where guns, not murderers, are demonized, taxed (background checks, incompetent testing, and lock and safe requirements) and regulated into oblivion, less and less people have them until there is no longer "a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. The 2A will effectively be banned if it is barely exercised, and the government will have all the power against an almost completely disarmed (except for "criminals") public.

elsensei said...

davina, here's the deal. Make it illegal for criminals to own guns, fine. But the only way to do a background check is by government doing it. The same government -if it turned tyrannical- that would be overthrown by citizens with guns. That is what the 2nd amendment is all about. So it makes no sense to give that same potentially tyrannical government a list of people who are gun buyers.

And I think I am reasonable. If you commit a crime with or without a gun, you're prosecuted. If you're negligent and leave a gun where a kid can get it, you're prosecuted or sued. Any additional laws are stupid and unnecessary. You can't legislate the morons out of existence and the right to own guns anonymously solely to keep government in line is too precious and too important.

That is where we ought to be focusing our efforts...not being afraid to proclaim the real meaning of the 2nd amendment. It's to be able to kill tyrants.

If a government isn't planning on being tyrannical, then why do they need to regulate guns?

davina said...

"If a government isn't planning on being tyrannical, then why do they need to regulate guns?"

Because the government is made up of individual human beings. People that have their own opinions, and who pass legislation according to their OWN values and beliefs. There isn't a collective government mind. A lot of times people have similar ideas (especially along party lines), but the reason that the government regulates guns is because a large number of people who comprise the government have their own idea that guns are bad. If you or I were a politician, we would advocate for less restrictive laws. But not because we're part of a government, but because that's how we believe it should be. We'd be following our own ideals.

There isn't some government conspiracy that's trying to regulate guns... or anything else for that matter. There are only single individuals who try to push their own agendas. You could argue that trying to push your own agenda could be classified as tyrannical. But that's just human nature. You're never going to get a group of individuals (especially one as large as a state or federal government) to put aside their own beliefs to do what's best for every citizen of the country. Plus, what some think is best isn't the same as what others think is best.

elsensei said...

Uh-huh. another reason I love the Constitution and the idea that we are a REPUBLIC and not a stinking democracy.

See, in a constitutional republic like we have, all we need to say is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and it doesn't matter how many idiots there are in opposition, eventually we will win.

What individuals in government think is irrelevant, because they all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That is supposed to supercede the personal beliefs of any government lackey.

And I have no agenda that could be called tyrannical. Just get the hell out of my way and I'll stay out of your way. I'm not interested in taking anything from you or harming you in any way, and I won't be robbed or harmed. Sound fair?